I think the biggest distinction between Cobre-Panaman (CP) and Schaft Creek (SC) is that CP is under construction and almost fully financed (needs roughly another $400M) and therefore has been substantially de-risked. We don't know SC's capital requirements but we know it will be a big chunk of change (>$3B ?).

Keep in mind, the current bid for IMN does not assign any value ($0) according to most analysts. I would suggest this is pretty significant but it is probably the main reason why the bid was rejected, aside from the many conditions included in the deal. Talk about low ball offer.

Nevertheless, the bid for Imnet reiterates the need for majors to lock down large copper deposits, even low grade porphyry types. This is the good news. It is interesting to note that, much like CUU, IMN’s top 5 shareholders own approximately 50% of the company so it is most likely that only a friendly transaction has a probability to succeed.

Raymond James thinks Teck could actually be a possible bidder (are you kidding, does no one know about SC!!!!!):

Teck Resources a possible bidder. In our view, a possible bidder for Inmet could be Teck Resources, given Teck’s previous involvement in Cobre Panama. Teck previously owned a 26% stake in Cobre Panama, before selling it to Inmet in December 2008 for ~$30 mln, amid the financial crisis, when Teck’s own stock was trading at sub-C$10 levels. Given the recent delays of Teck’s own copper projects (QB2 and Relincho), the company now has a void in copper growth that its management may want to fill. Although there may be some hesitation on the part of Teck’s management, given that re-approaching Inmet may look as admission that the original stake sale was a mistake, we nonetheless believe that Teck would be interested in the project.